September 14th saw the 4th annual Ottawa SlutWalk, where men and women from all around came together to expose the constructs around rape culture and sexual violence. Started in 2011, the movement began as a reaction to a comment made by Toronto Police Constable Michael Sanguinetti at a York University safety forum:

“You know, I think we’re beating around the bush here,” the officer said, according to Hoffman [member of the Osgoode student government], “I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this, however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”

Oh yes, Jon Stewart, he did. A Toronto Police Constable went ahead and said – DESPITE the orders of what we can only assume is a superior – that women should avoid dressing like sluts if they don’t want to be raped. While the intention behind his words may not actually translate to him believing that a woman dressing in what some might consider a provocative way is a green light for rape, it sure sounds like it.

There is a lot of power in words. The old rhyme “sticks and stone may break my bones, but names will never hurt me” just doesn’t ring true anymore. While efforts can be made to let names and words thrown carelessly about roll off your back, damage is done each and every time the words are spoken. While the person speaking those words might be trying to convey the message that there are terrible people out there who will use whatever excuse they can to violate you because they have very little – if any – regard for other human beings, what ends up being heard is that the victim provoked the attack.

Victim blaming. How vile.

It’s extracted from the same vein of the “nude leaks”. As I’ve said before, these photographs were not “leaked” they were STOLEN. A thief took them from the victims and gave them to the world, making voyeurs out of a great number of the general population. Perhaps voyeur isn’t even the correct term to use here. Accomplices feels more true.

So, SlutWalk? Lets get back on topic, shall we?

Don Butler^, a senior writer at the Ottawa Citizen, attended the Ottawa SlutWalk to report on the proceedings. After having getting a few photographs of the protesters and talking to a few participants, he proceeded to write up his article. The title?

What’s with the scare quotes? Does he not believe that a rape culture exists? What is he skeptical of? And why the need to state “heat up”? They aren’t there to make you “hot and bothered,” or whatever euphemism you choose to substitute there. They dressed up in this manner to make people THINK.

Once again, we have a case of someone being INFORMED as to the nature of the situation, and the message being either lost in translation, or outright ignored. The graphic above makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. The “reporting” and “journalism” in scare quotes by these two women make the reader think. By reflecting back onto the scare quotes in the title, it forces the reader to investigate. There is a basic belief that journalism should be free from bias. This is, of course, untrue. Everything is biased. Even photographic and video-graphic forms are subject to bias. Something as simple as a filter, a carefully placed light, or interpretation can change what message is being conveyed.

Take, for example, Picasso’s piece Geurnica, thought by many to be the most politically powerful piece of anti-war symbolism in the modern world. Even those who agree to this interpretation vary on the meanings within the deconstruction. The colours, the postures, the emotions…everything is subject to the viewers interpretation. Even the instructions that it should not return to Spain until democracy had been achieved? What a powerful message!

But there are opposers. It is a creation. It is a painting that hangs in a museum. There was a time when it literally hung behind bullet-proof glass. The power and the glory of this piece can only truly be experienced by those who are fortunate enough to be able to go to Museo Reina Sofía. And then, this message is only translatable to those who are open and willing to investigate it. Call me a pessimist, but I don’t think all war-mongers, gang-bangers, and hate-filled people are cultured. Beyond that, I highly doubt that those who are cultured to some degree would think to themselves that going to see Geurnica is a logical first step to building the ethos that all future thoughts and endeavors will be based upon.

So what is it good for?

 Pieces like Geurnica are valuable in the sense that they start conversations. Sure, most of those conversations are amongst like minded individuals, but there will be the inevitable overspill to those who might be on the fence of such a topic. It is valuable in regards to rallying for a cause. The more people talking about a single subject, the more momentum any movement that is borne from those conversations it gains.

Take, for example, the gender equality movement. Emma Watson^ was recently named goodwill Ambassador to the movement in the UN. In her speech to the UN for HeForShe, she advocated for men to join the movement as well. She eloquently outlines the reasons why this movement is a mens movement as well, calling for the end to masculine and feminine stereotypes that force strict gender binaries. Almost immediately, the recording of her speech was all over social media, being lauded as a powerful example of modern feminism.

What followed is distressing. A group of hate filled people put together a website that counted down to the release of nude photographs of Emma Watson, specifically because she made a speech on the necessity of feminism and the need for men to join in the efforts. Once the countdown expired, there were no photographs released. And the good people of the internet came to their defense! “They were never going to release pics!”, “There never were any pictures!”, and “It’s all in good fun!” were the typical responses from the typical trolls. So this was, what? A joke? How is this funny to anyone? EVEN IF Emma has never taken a nude photograph of herself and therefore had no reason to fear the publication of such photos, it still isn’t funny. What this says is “You don’t hold the power, not even over yourself. We hold the power.” and “Your voice doesn’t matter. Your privacy doesn’t matter. You are here for our pleasure”. 

So when people question the presence of “rape culture” and the need to make that conversation a priority, or make excuses for people who try to be clever and make a joke about or in the midst of the conversation, I question their integrity, their intelligence, and their morals. And when someone says “what if it were your daughter, your sister, or your mother?” I cringe. I cringe because that implies that women are still viewed, in some shape or form, as property.